## Facts

- The case centered on the interaction between the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 and the Housing Act 1925.
- The 1919 Act set out specific rules for compensating landowners whose property was compulsorily acquired by the government.
- The 1925 Act introduced different rules for compensation in its defined context, leading to conflicting approaches with those in the 1919 Act.
- Ellen Street Estates Ltd, the appellants, argued that the 1925 Act did not operate to remove the relevant parts of the 1919 Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the compensation provisions of the Housing Act 1925 operated to repeal, by implication, the compensation rules in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919.
2. What standard courts should apply to determine when implied repeal operates between conflicting statutes.
3. Whether minor variances or partial disagreements between two Acts are sufficient to trigger implied repeal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal, led by Scrutton LJ, determined that the 1925 Act’s compensation rules replaced those of the 1919 Act for the relevant cases.
- The court noted that the compensation frameworks of the two Acts were so inconsistent that they could not both be given effect simultaneously.
- It was held that, in such cases, the later Act prevails, and the earlier law is repealed by implication to the extent of the inconsistency.

## Legal Principles

- Implied repeal arises only when there is a direct and unavoidable conflict between two statutes; minor differences are insufficient.
- Courts generally seek to interpret statutes harmoniously and avoid implied repeal unless no other interpretation is possible.
- When a specific and later statute is inconsistent with an earlier and more general statute, the specific provision typically prevails.
- Express repeal, where a new law directly cancels earlier provisions, is preferred for clarity but implied repeal remains necessary for unforeseen statutory conflicts.
- The approach in Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health was reinforced by earlier and later cases, such as Vauxhall Estates Ltd v Liverpool Corporation [1932] 1 KB 733, and Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59, confirming the doctrine’s importance in statutory interpretation.

## Conclusion

Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health confirmed that if two laws irreconcilably conflict, the later law impliedly repeals the former. This upholds parliamentary sovereignty and legal coherence, requiring precise legislative drafting and reinforcing the doctrine’s enduring role in statutory interpretation.

Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590